Maglasang vs.

Cabatingan (2) That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the
June 05, 2002 | J. Austria-Martinez
 February 17, 1992 – Conchita Cabatingan executed in favor of her brother
Nicolas Cabatingan (pet) a Deed of Conditional Donation Inter Vivos for a
house and lot at Cot-Cot, Liloan, Cebu
 She then executed four other deeds of donation in favor of petitioners,
which all contained a provision stating that the donation is to become
effective upon the death of the donor and that in the event that the
DONEE should die before the DONOR, the present donation shall be
deemed automatically rescinded and of no further force and effect.
The donations include:
o In favor of Estela Maglasang – two parcels of land in Cogon Ceby
and a portion of a parcel in Masbate
o In favor of Nicolas Cabatingan – parcel of land in Masbate
o In favor of Merly Cabatingan– a portion of the Masbate property
 May 9, 1995 – Conchita died
 Upon learning the 4 donations, respondents filed an action for the
Annulment And/Or Declaration of Nullity of Deeds of Donations
o They claim that the petitioners took advantage of Conchita’s
fragile condition to get her to execute the deeds of donation
o They also claim that the Deeds are void for not following the form
prescribed by the Civil Code
 The respondents thus prayed that a receiver be appointed and they they
be declared co-owners of the said properties, together with Nicolas.
 RTC – Held that the Deeds of Donation failed to comply with formal and
solemn requisites of a donation mortis causa.
 Hence the present petition.
o Petitioners insist that the donations were inter vivos; the
stipulation on rescission in case petitioners die ahead of
Cabatingan is a resolutory condition that confirms the nature of
the donation as inter vivos.
transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for
indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of
the properties conveyed;
(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the
transferee.
 ITC, the phrase to become effective upon the death of the DONOR admits
of no other interpretation but that Conchita did not intend to transfer the
ownership of the properties to petitioners during her lifetime.
 Further, petitioners expressly confirmed the donations as mortis causa in
the Acceptance and Attestation clauses, uniformly found in the subject
deeds of donation, to wit: “That the DONEE does hereby accept the
foregoing donation mortis causa….”
 That the donations were made in consideration of the love and affection
of the donor does not qualify the donations as inter vivos because
transfers mortis causa may also be made for the same reason.
 Further, that the transfer should be considered void if the donor should
survive the donee is a decisive characteristic of a donation mortis cause.
W/N THE DONATIONS WERE EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUISITES OF WILLS AND SOLEMNITIESAND TESTAMENTS - NO
 Considering that the disputed donations are donations mortis causa, the
same partake of the nature of testamentary provisions and as such, said
deeds must be executed in accordance with the requisites on solemnities
of wills and testaments under Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code.
 The deeds in question although acknowledged before a notary public of
the donor and the donee, the documents were not executed in the manner
provided for under the said provisions.

MAIN ISSUE: W/N THE DONATIONS WERE NULL AND VOID – Yes.

W/N THE DONATIONS WERE DONATIONS MORTIS CAUSA – Yes.

 In a donation mortis causa, the right of disposition is not transferred to
the donee while the donor is still alive.
 In determining whether a donation is one of mortis causa, the following
characteristics must be taken into account:
(1) It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death
of the transferor; or what amounts to the same thing, that the
transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control
of the property while alive;